Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to join the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and commend her highly for the forum that will be held in Houston on Iraq and should America go to war. As always she is in the forefront of the leadership in this institution and in our country. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to follow up on something that the gentlewoman had stated regarding reasons of war and to point out to those who are listening that there is in this post-Cold War world that there is a shifting of relationships, and nations are trying to find their way forward with new alliances; and the United States in that context has to be careful in order to not be perceived as, one, a Nation that would commit naked aggression. That is something the United States fought for the entirety of the 20th century. Rather, a Nation that always engages for justified wars, justifiable purposes. And there is a distinction, and we should not abrogate our heritage. It is what has gained us the stature that we do have internally and externally. Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to follow on something the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) talked about when we were discussing the internal state of Iraq, their economy and their military. I think it is important to put on the record that two-thirds of Saddam Hussein's forces were leveled in the Persian Gulf War. In other words, the force is one-third of what it used to be. The American people should not have the illusion that over the 10 years during which we and other countries have maintained the no-fly zone over Iraq that there has not been constant bombing and constant economic sanctions that have made life difficult for people inside that country, and, indeed, children dying, not enough food, extraordinary poverty among so many people. The conditions inside Iraq are abysmal. In addition to that, Iraq essentially is an oil state. And as I mentioned earlier, it has the largest reserves outside of Saudi Arabia. Prior to the Persian Gulf War, Iraq had been pumping 3.5 million barrels a day. Today she pumps but 1.7 million barrels a day. That says that not only are the sanctions hurting her, but the lack of production is hurting her as well. And Iraq does not operate in a vacuum. She operates in a part of the world where not everyone is her friend. And certainly she has had historic rivalries with Iran, and we all know about the invasion of Kuwait. Iraq is a secular nation in that part of the world that also has tried to defend herself from fears relating to relations with surrounding countries. So I think it is important to be realistic about what is going on there. Therefore, we read in the Wall Street Journal, September 17, Lawrence Lindsey, the President's head of the White House National Economic Council, making the following statement, `` `When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add 3 million to 5 million barrels of production to world supply each day,' Mr. Lindsey estimated. `The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the U.S. economy.' '' Mr. Speaker, the entire article is as follows: [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 17, 2002] Bush Economic Aide Says Cost of Iraq War May Top $100 Billion (By Bob Davis) Washington.--President Bush's chief economic adviser estimates that the U.S. may have to spend between $100 billion and $200 billion to wage a war in Iraq, but doubts that the hostilities would push the nation into recession or a sustained period of inflation. Lawrence Lindsey, head of the White House's National Economic Council, projected the ``upper bound'' of war costs at between 1% and 2% of U.S. gross domestic product. With the U.S. GDP at about $10 trillion per year, that translates into a one-time cost of $100 billion to $200 billion. That is considerably higher than a preliminary, private Pentagon estimate of about $50 billion. In an interview in his White House office. Mr. Lindsey dismissed the economic consequences of such spending, saying it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on interest rates or add much to the federal debt, which is already about $3.6 trillion. ``One year'' of additional spending? he said. ``That's nothing.'' At the same time, he doubted that the additional spending would give the economy much of a lift. ``Government spending tends not to be that stimulative,'' he said. ``Building weapons and expending them isn't the basis of sustained economic growth.'' Administration officials have been unwilling to talk about the specific costs of a war, preferring to discuss the removal of Mr. Hussein in foreign-policy or even moral terms. Discussing the economics of the war could make it seem as if the U.S. were going to war over oil. That could sap support domestically and abroad, especially in the Mideast where critics suspect the U.S. of wanting to seize Arab oil fields. Mr. Lindsey, who didn't provide a detailed analysis of the costs, drew an analogy between the potential war expenditures with an investment in the removal of a threat to the economy. ``It's hard for me to see how we have sustained economic growth in a world where terrorists with weapons of mass destruction are running around,'' he said. If you weigh the cost of the war against the removal of a ``huge drag on global economic growth for a foreseeable time in the future, there's no comparison.'' Other administration economists say that their main fear is that an Iraq war could lead to a sustained spike in prices. The past four recessions have been preceded by the price of oil jumping to higher than $30 a barrel, according to BCA Research.com in Montreal. But the White House believes that removing Iraqi oil from production during a war--which would likely lead to a short-term rise in prices--would be insufficient to tip the economy into recession. What is worrisome, economists say, is if the war widens and another large Middle East supplier stops selling to the U.S., either because of an Iraqi attack or out of solidarity with Saddam Hussein's regime. Mr. Lindsey said that Mr. Hussein's ouster could actually ease the oil problem by increasing supplies. Iraqi production has been constrained somewhat because of its limited investment and political factors. ``When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels of production to world supply'' each day. Mr. Lindsey estimated. ``The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.'' Currently, Iraq produces 1.7 million barrels of oil daily, according to OPEC figures. Before the Gulf War, Iraq produced around 3.5 million barrels a day. Mr. Lindsey's cost estimate is higher than the $50 billion number offered privately by the pentagon in its conversations with Congress. The difference shows the pitfalls of predicting the cost of a military conflict when nobody is sure how difficult or long it will be. Whatever the bottom line, the war's costs would be significant enough to make it harder for the Bush administration to climb out of the budget-deficit hole it faces because of the economic slowdown and expense of the war on terrorism. Mr. Lindsey didn't spell out the specifics of the spending and didn't make clear whether he was including in his estimate the cost of rebuilding Iraq or installing a new regime. His estimate is roughly in line with the $58 billion cost of the gulf War, which equaled about 1 percent of GDP in 1991. During that war, U.S. allies paid $48 billion of the cost, says William Hoagland, chief Republican staffer of the Senate Budget Committee. This time it is far from clear how much of the cost--if any--America's allies would be willing to bear. Most European allies, apart form Britain, have been trying to dissuade Mr. Bush from launching an attack, at least without a United Nations resolution of approval. But if the U.S. decides to invade, it may be able to get the allies to pick up some of the tab if only to help their companies cash in on the bounty from a post-Saddam Iraq. Toppling Mr. Hussein could be more expensive than the Persian Gulf War if the U.S. has to keep a large number of troops in the country to stabilize it once Mr. Hussein is removed from power. Despite the Bush administration's aversion to nation building, Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of U.S. troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, recently said that the U.S. troops in Afghanistan likely would remain for years to come. The same is almost certain to be true in Iraq. Keeping the peace among Iraq's fractious ethnic groups almost certainly will require a long-term commitment of U.S. troops. During the Gulf War, the U.S. fielded 500,000 troops. A far smaller force is anticipated in a new attack on Iraq. But the GOP's Mr. Hoagland said the costs could be higher because of the expense of a new generation of smart missiles and bombs. In addition, the nature of the assault this time is expected to be different. During the Gulf War, U.S. troops bombed from above and sent tank-led troops in for a lighting sweep through the Iraqi desert. A new Iraq war could involve prolonged fighting in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities--even including house-to-house combat. The Gulf War started with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, which prompted a brief recession. The U.S. started bombing Iraq on Jan. 16, 1991, and called a halt to the ground offensive at the end of February. With Iraq's invasion, oil prices spiked and consumer confidence in the U.S. plunged. But Mr. Lindsey said the chance of that happening again is ``small.'' U.S. diplomats have been trying to get assurances from Saudi Arabia, Russia and other oil-producing states that they would make up for any lost Iraqi oil production. In addition, Mr. Lindsey said that the pumping equipment at the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been improved so oil is easier to tap, if necessary. Both the Bush and Clinton administrations, he said, wanted to ``make sure you can pump oil out quickly.'' On Thursday, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he doubted a war would lead to recession because of the reduced dependence of the U.S. economy on oil. ``I don't think that . . . the effect of oil as it stands at this particular stage, is large enough to impact the economy unless the hostilities are prolonged.'' Mr. Greenspan told the House Budget Committee. ``If we go through a time frame such as the Gulf War, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on us.'' The U.S. economy also has become less dependent on oil than it was in 1990, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, an economic consulting group in West Chester, Pa. A larger percentage of economic activity comes from services, as compared with energy-intensive manufacturers, he said. Many of those manufacturers also use more energy- efficient machinery. We have to begin to connect the dots here with the President's advisers and with what is really going on, knowing the internals of Iraq, the nations that she relates to, her internal economic situation, and keeping our eye on when the enemy is, who was responsible for the World Trade Center, for the Pentagon and for the disaster over Pennsylvania. It is al Qaeda. They do not have roots in Iraq. We have persistently asked the administration for any ties that they can see there; and I would just urge, as I know my colleagues are, the American people to distinguish between hearsay and evidence regarding what al Qaeda has done and what Iraq's record might be. Now, is Iraq a perfect country? I daresay not. It is not my favorite form of government. No repressive state is. But in that part of the world there is not a single democracy or functioning democratic republic. It simply does not exist. This is the challenge for the new generation, to embrace this part of the world in ways that builds more open societies. But, certainly, naked aggression by a superpower with no evidence presented to this Congress is not a way to make friends in that part of the world where, frankly, America needs to make friends. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to put on the record tonight if there are any officials who may be listening, and I am sure my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), would agree with this, from the government of Iraq. I, as one Member of Congress, and I know some of my colleagues would join me in this, would certainly entertain a request from the government of Iraq from Saddam Hussein to meet with Members of this Congress to negotiate the terms of inspection, respecting the role of the United Nations, having members of the United Nations team join us for that; but to extend an open arm to the people of Iraq as we move into this 21st century, to write a new page in history. We know we do not have a great deal of trust, but one has to confront one's enemies. One has to be able to talk. Only with that kind of negotiation does one avoid war. Whether it is through third parties first and then we move to that step, as I as one Member of Congress would certainly be open to it. And I think that a number of my colleagues would join me in that effort.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention during the Persian Gulf War when I served here and Iraq was able to launch some SCUD missiles into Israel, at that time, she could have equipped them with chemical weapons, with biological weapons, but it was not done, and why would that be? I think because Saddam Hussein, as military leader in his own country, recognized that he and his Nation would face annihilation if that happened. So there is a rational military mind working there.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, some of the best forums that we have involved a combination of universities, church leaders, community activists, citizens, just inviting ordinary citizens to learn. Many people feel powerless. They feel this is foreign policy, what can I do about that. I think they underestimate their own power.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the able gentleman from Cleveland, Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), for bringing us together and exhibiting the leadership role that he has, both within the Congress and outside in our country, in attempting to deliver the messages to the American people that they need to hear about decision-making here in Washington on the important issues of war and peace, and how it affects them in their families, in their communities, and, obviously, in our country. I know there will be many other Members who will speak, and I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for also appearing on programs like ``Crossfire'' and trying to get out the message to the American people, which largely is being blocked here in Washington because of the way we are functioning as a Congress. Here it is the middle of the week, we have had a few votes today, we could not say any of them were very earthshaking, and now votes have been canceled next Monday and Friday. We will not be here this Friday, we were not here this Monday, and our floor time is extraordinarily limited. So it has been very difficult to talk to the American people about this continuing drumbeat toward war because essentially, our institutions and our ability to function as a lawmaking body have been heavily proscribed by the Republican leadership in this Chamber, and it has been hard to get the word out. I would say that no gentleman has worked harder than the gentleman from Cleveland, Ohio, to talk to the American people and to present the information that is very important. I know this will be an exchange tonight, and we will go back and forth; but it is probably important to put in some context what happened about one year ago, 9-11, 2001 when 17 individuals, international criminals from Saudi Arabia, 17 of 19 created carnage in our country in New York, over Pennsylvania, and here in Washington, from the al Qaeda network, which is a Middle Eastern terrorist network. Their supposed leader, Osama bin Laden, made the statement at that time that these crimes were being committed against the American people because he wanted Western infidels out of Saudi Arabia. Iraq was not even on the table. Iraq is not an issue. Our major confrontation has been with al Qaeda; and, of course, they took refuge inside of Afghanistan, and so all of us have troops from our districts currently deployed, Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marines, in that region of the world and here at home protecting the American people and defending our freedom. But it is important to remind ourselves that the enemy we are fighting is the terrorist network of al Qaeda. The President came down here to the floor of Congress and said that. I think it is also important to point out that al Qaeda is an Islamic fundamentalist network. In other words, it is very religious. They have a sacred rage that has turned their views highly political and highly dangerous into the international realm, and they do not have a presence in Iraq, because Iraq is a secular state. Al Qaeda has not been known to use Iraq as its base. So there is a disconnect between the policies that we are pursuing in order to bring to justice those who have done so much harm globally through al Qaeda, and also there has been an ignorance of Saudi Arabia's role in permitting the Saudis to operate inside Saudi Arabia and then promoting madrassahs outside of Saudi Arabia as well, producing hate-filled young boys who ultimately become terrorists in years hence in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Malaysia, indeed around the world. So I wanted to just place on the record as we begin who the enemy is in terms of September 11 and subsequently, and all of a sudden emerging then through this summer we begin to hear about war with Iraq, and we ask ourselves the questions and we have gone to all the security briefings here on the Hill, what is the connection? What has Iraq done in the last 4 months different than the prior 4 years? What is anticipated over the next 4 months or 8 months or 1 year different than what happened over the last 5 or 10 years? And no evidence. We have been presented with no photographs, with no intelligence information to give us any connection between what has happened relative to al Qaeda and the enemy we are fighting and Iraq, and yet there is this tremendous drumbeat toward going to war with Iraq. The President said at the United Nations last week, and I am very thankful that President Bush went to the United Nations because we still have been engaged as one of 189 nations in the world, the international community, he said that Iraq presented a grave and gathering threat. Not an imminent threat, a grave and gathering threat to the world. So those words I listened to very carefully. I asked myself what is really going on here? I also want to place on the record tonight an article that was in the Washington Post on Sunday entitled An Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue. I think it is important for the American people to know that even though technically the President wants to go to war with Iraq, today 8 percent of the oil we consume here in the United States is from Iraq. That may sound like a paradox. After Saudi Arabia, Iraq presents the largest oil fields in the world and in fact has proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil. This article talks about the reshuffling of the world petroleum markets related to any change of regime in Iraq, and I think it is important to follow the business pages which today showed that with the possibility of Iraq's regime changing, oil prices in the world were beginning to actually drop because, as this article states, five permanent members of the Security Council, the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China, have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Bagdad; and without question, it says, the United States would almost certainly be the dominant foreign power in Iraq after the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall. The leader of a group called the Iraqi National Congress, based in London, an umbrella organization of opposition groups backed by our country, among others, the leader of that group, Ahmed Chalabi, says that American oil companies would have a big shot at Iraqi oil. I think it is really important for the American people to distinguish between our war with the al Qaeda terrorist network and Islamic fundamentalist network, with no real home country but with deep roots in Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, which actually had been an ally of the United States prior to the Persian Gulf war, and we should be insisting as a country on the evidence for any invasion. I know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) would like to add to what I have said and I again thank him so much for his international leadership on this important question. The article referred to is as follows: [From the Washington Post, Sept. 15, 2002] In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue (By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway) A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil ldeals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition. Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia. The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush's call for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council--the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China--have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad. ``It's pretty straightforward,'' said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. ``France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them.'' But he added: ``If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them.'' Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound them out about their intentions. Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. sanctions. But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals. ``We will review all these agreements, definitely,'' said Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization of opposition groups that is backed by the United States. ``Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected by the people.'' Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a decade of sanctions. ``American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil,'' Chalabi said. The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change of leadership. While the Bush Administration's campaign against Hussein is presenting vast possibilities for multinational oil giants, it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil markets, according to industry analysts. Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela and Angola. While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to unlock Siberia's oil treasures far less appealing. Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil companies, the administration, preoccupied with military planning and making the case about Hussein's potential threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, according to U.S. officials. The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a department spokesman said last week. An official with the National Security Council declined to say whether oil had been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush had had over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Western leaders. On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three- day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy summit in Houston at which more than 100 Russian and American energy companies are expected. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) said Bush is keenly aware of Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get private assurances from Bush that Russia ``will be made whole'' financially. Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week that the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's government. But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over the giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall. Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq since the late 1980s, when relations soured between Washington and Baghdad. Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S. government studies say the results have been disappointment. While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997 to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N. sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless work began immediately. Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in Iraq's western desert. The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its decision to abide by the sanctions. Officials of several major firms said they were taking care to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over how to proceed on Iraq. ``There's no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. There'll be plenty of time in the future,'' said James Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities. But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with Hussein's ouster, companies such as ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco would almost assuredly play a role, industry officials said. ``There's not an oil company out there that wouldn't be interested in Iraq,'' one analyst said.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his passionate statement and the people of the Cleveland area are indeed fortunate to have him here. I would only add, when the gentleman talks about imminent threat, that if one looks at why we are in the current recession and what triggered it, it was rising oil prices, as happened during the 1970s, when the Arab oil embargo twice delivered body blows to this economy and we had prices skyrocket. The price of oil doubled per barrel until the OPEC nations said, gosh, this is not so good if we make America fall to its knees because of imported oil. Then it started to control prices from places like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, all those countries, and then we moved into the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and again, why? Because of the threat to the world economy, especially our own, and the instability inherent in these oil economies. Then just 2 years ago next month, the suicide bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen harbor, our destroyer. What was she doing there? Guarding the lanes of commerce as those oil tankers come out of the Persian Gulf into the West here, unload, and then it is refined here. Now, with Iraq and all these statements being made by the Bush administration, which has enormous ties to oil, it is no secret that Kenneth Lay and Enron were the largest contributors to the Bush campaign, we have this drumbeat for more U.S. involvement in that part of the world where oil props up every single one of those countries, whether it is Saudi Arabia, whether it is Iraq, whether it is Kuwait. We really start looking around and saying, oh, and even Afghanistan, where the pipeline has to run from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan in order for that crude oil to reach its destination, one of the imminent threats to the United States where over half of our oil is now imported, 25 percent of it from that part of the world, about 28 percent actually, we have to become energy self-sufficient here at home. So I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) thanks for all the efforts he has made with us to move into renewable energy supplies from a hydrocarbon economy to a carbohydrate, a photovoltaic economy, moving into fuel cells and new forms of power for this country so we can cut the umbilical cord to so many of these places in the world that have undemocratic regimes, and every time a consumer in our country goes to the gas pump, half the money they pay for that fuel goes to Saudi Arabia, Iraq. It goes to Venezuela, Nigeria. Not a single democratic republic among them.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding and say that I rise in opposition to the rule on the conference report. The American people know something is wrong in Washington when every single trade bill passed by this Congress and signed by the President results in more lost jobs, more penny-wage jobs, more lost markets as imports deluge in here from every single country in the world and we cash out good jobs with good benefits in textiles, in electronics, in agriculture, in automotive, in machine tools, in steel; even baseball and U.S. flags. TPA expands NAFTA to the entire hemisphere. Before NAFTA, we had a trade balance, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), with Mexico. Every year the trade balance has gone down, gone south, losing over hundreds of thousands of jobs into Mexico and cashing out our automotive and machine tool industry and even agriculture now down there. And when people start getting paid $3 a day, then guess what happened? They moved the jobs to China. So we have had a sucking sound to Mexico which is now shifting over to China, and I defy any American to go into a store today and buy something that is not made in China, and the American people can verify this through their own experience. Now, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), he did not really talk about the pain and suffering. Talk to the workers at Brachs Candy in South Chicago. They are about to go through that shutdown, a 100 year-old company. It is one in a long line of millions of U.S. jobs. I used to feel sorry for you that you really did not understand, but I feel much sorrier for the workers and the farmers of this continent and the world, because you are creating a great divergence between wealth and poverty. You are drawing a new Mason Dixon Line. It is different than what we experienced inside the United States. The wealthy, the shareholders, those on Wall Street and the futures markets, they love this system. But the workers of our country and the farmers of the world, they are being hurt. What do you think is fueling immigration into this country from the south? Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the report. Do not vote for a world with these kinds of extremes in wealth and poverty that are cashing out our middle class and creating global environmental cesspools and corporate slums and global plantations with penny-wage jobs. Vote for the kinds of trade agreements that build a middle class here at home and abroad and true world peace. And what a shame for us, what a shame for us that this is being brought up at 1 o'clock in the morning, just like GATT was about 8 years ago, because they want to do it in the quiet of the night when most people are sleeping. It is too important for that. Have some self- respect for us. Let us debate as we should one of the most important bills that will come before this Congress. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise along with my dear colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), to pay lasting and precious tribute to our colleague and dear friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall). Without question, this is a gentleman of the House. I think his appointment to the Committee on Rules and to that particular position which governs our deliberations as a body is a testament to the talent that he brought to our institution and the manner in which he has executed it and risen in the esteem and effectiveness as a Member of Congress. He has served honorably through the quarter century that he has given to the Congress and the people from his home district in the Greater Dayton, Ohio area. At every fork in the road, he has elevated this institution as a person and also as a political figure. So rarely do those that really do good get their day in the sun. The newspapers tend to cover those who may have strayed from the straight and narrow, and it is particularly a pleasure today as an Ohioan to say that this man deserves our attention and appreciation. I have watched the gentleman change over the years. Not that the goodness and the caring was not always there, but I have watched a depth of concern grow for the suffering of the world, in forgotten places, whether it is in our country or on another continent far from places where most Americans will ever travel. He has confronted the face of suffering. He has held dying children in his arms, and he has not walked away from that horrible, horrible thought of the fragility of life and what he as a person can actually do about it. I have seen other concerns become less important. Some, in fact, of the unimportant moments that consume so many of the hours here sometimes in a day, the procedural motions and all of the paraphernalia that goes with holding together a large country like ours and its governing institutions, but for Tony, the depth, the passion that has grown because of what he has seen globally has transformed him and helped transform us through association with him to a greater understanding of our needs as a people; and, indeed, the people of the world. As I watched Tony with some of his friends, Mickey Leland and Bill Emerson, also distinguished Members for so many years, I watched them travel together and bring back to us knowledge that we did not have. Through those efforts to change the way in which America feeds the world, to change the way in which we look at hunger, to create the Congressional Hunger Center here, to bring the young people of America to the Nation's capital and to get them engaged in one of the most perplexing and searing experiences one can have, and that is to meet people who do not even have enough food to survive for one day. We see in Afghanistan and other places people eating dirt to stay alive, and it is difficult to imagine that any one of us in our own lives would ever confront that and actually take on a position where that becomes the norm. Yet to fly in the face of that and to keep walking is what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) means to me. I have seen the photos of his trips to Africa and North Korea; and I have also been with him in Dayton, Ohio, going through empty food pantries, trying to work with farmers that he tried to get to donate apples, and to bring those into these feeding centers, to try to find excess food that would be available in that metropolitan area and to make it available to the poor in his region and our State. He has been unrelenting in his commitment. I think that the President has made an extraordinary appointment in nominating the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) as our ambassador to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. He will do a stellar job. I know that every single person whose life he touches and what he brings back to us and what he can tell us about how to be better citizens of our country and the world is something that he alone can do and will do for us. We will again be the better for that service. I will say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) that I will miss him very much. As an Ohio Member, I have truly enjoyed serving with him, getting to know him and Janet, his family, the kindness and the gentlemanly behavior you have always demonstrated toward me, and I know is the same with every other Member in this Chamber. God bless you and keep you safe and healthy in your travels. It has been my honor to serve with you, Tony. Come back often. You are a great American. Some day that Nobel Prize, I hope, will find its way into your home.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and in opposition to the underlying bill. We do not need another Federal department. Real homeland security means economic security for our workers and our families here at home. It means good jobs. It means pensions they can depend on and it means health benefits that are there for all. It is really interesting that the administration has put this glossy report together on this new department, which would be the third largest bureaucracy in the government of the United States, over 170,000 people, and how do we know how many billions of dollars and still counting. Basically, this is political cover over an operational problem. We know that the CIA and the FBI did not do their job completely. We knew Osama bin Laden was the number one enemy. We did not know where he was. Right after 9-11, what did the FBI and the CIA do? They start advertising in The Washington Post for people who could speak Arabic and Pashtun because we were not properly staffed inside the departments and agencies that should have been functioning. So now we will create another department. Does that mean they will have people who can translate? Will we have people who can do the job? Will they get the computers so they can communicate? The FBI and CIA are not in the Homeland Security Agency where we have the problem. They are not even part of the solution. What we will get from a new department, when we most need coordination in this country at every level, we will get chaos. I bet the people here on the floor of today have never been about setting up a new Federal department. We set up the Department of Energy. Are we energy self-sufficient today? No, we are not. We set up the Department of Education. Are our kids reading scores going up? No, they are not. So now at a time when we need really refined targeted efforts across this world to deal with the problem that we have not faced before, we are setting up the Department, and will it have the staffing that is necessary. Just on one agency that they will try to roll in here APHIS, the Animal, Plant Health Inspection Service from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The problem is we do not have enough inspectors at the border. Are you going to give us more money for inspectors or are you just going to ship the box over to another department? The problem is not a new department. The problem is making the agencies that exist function. I am proud of the people in New York City. We could have had 50,000 die. We had 3,000 dead. They did their job. We saved 47,000 lives in this country. Our local law enforcement people, they need training at the local level. They do not need a new Federal Department to do that. They need training moneys to go down to the locality. We do not need to cut the law enforcement budget, what this administration is doing in terms of cops on the beat. In terms of FEMA, I do not want to put FEMA in this Department. FEMA works. It took us 10 years to fix FEMA up. So why do we want to stick it in this big agency of 170,000 people and we cannot even get direct communication to the top? We fought World War II, we did not need this Department. We defeated the Communists and the Soviet Union. We did not need this Department to do it. We fought the Persian Gulf War. Why do we need this now? This is political cover for operational problems the administration does not want to solve. Vote against the rule and the bill.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to honor Ambassador and Congresswoman Corinne ``Lindy'' Claiborne Boggs, a great and timeless leader and lady of this House. I had the privilege of serving with Lindy Boggs from the time I arrived in Congress in 1983 until her congressional retirement in 1991. As a member of the Banking Committee and the Appropriations Committee, she championed many causes including equal credit for women, civil rights, and community development. Lindy was instrumental in founding the Women's Caucus in 1977 when there were only 15 women in the House. She served as Caucus Secretary. Throughout her congressional career, she was dedicated to improving the lives of women and families. So, as we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Women's Caucus, it is only fitting that we honor Lindy's lifelong achievements. Her portrait hangs in the Women's Reading room now renamed The Corinne Lindy Claiborne Bogg Room for years hence. Lindy has the distinction of being the first woman elected to the House of Representatives from the state of Louisiana and the first woman to chair a national political convention, leading the Democratic National Convention that nominated former President Jimmy Carter in 1976. She was also America's distinguished Ambassador to the Holy See during the Clinton Administration, the first woman ever appointed to this post. On April 19, 1977, fifteen Congresswomen held the first meeting of the Women's Caucus. At the time there were a total of 18 female members of the House of Representatives and 2 female Members of the Senate. Twenty five years later, we have 62 female members of the House of Representatives and 13 female members of the Senate. Our progress is slow but steady, a testament to a nation that has expanded liberty for all people since our founding. With growing strength in numbers, Lindy's bipartisan spirit lives on today. The Congressional Women's Caucus continues to carry the torch for equitable pay, women's health, and child welfare under the leadership of Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald of California and Congresswoman Judy Biggert of Illinois. Lindy's spirit of bipartisanship has served as the key to the Caucus's strength and success, and I am honored to be a co-sponsor of this resolution. As a member of this people's House and the Women's Caucus for the past 20 years, I extend my sincere admiration and deepest appreciation to Corinne ``Lindy'' Claiborne Boggs for there extraordinary service to the people of the United States and the world and her unwavering dedication to the establishment of the Congressional Women's Caucus. Onward and godspeed to Lindy and her beautiful family.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), for yielding me this time, and I want to thank him for his cooperative efforts and leadership on this bill, and also the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), who is an historian of the House as well, for their very gracious accommodation to so many of the needs of our Chamber and of this House. I want to use this opportunity as a member of the committee to thank all the personnel, especially over the last several months when there has been additional pressure on our officers and all of the House staff, for the tremendous cooperation and the patriotism that they have demonstrated. We have the public coming back into our Chambers now, there is security beyond what we had before. We have to do this for the moment, but we want to thank all of them for their dedication to our country and the cause of liberty. I also want to say that in this bill we have funds, obviously, for the Congressional Research Service and the Library of Congress, two of the most distinguished organizations in the world for the assembly of the documents, materials, and analysis that represent us as a free people. Without question, the Library of Congress is the finest library in the world, and we hope that we will make it even better with the appropriations in this bill. In addition to that, we appreciate the openness of the head librarian, Dr. Billington, in looking at ethnic museums across our country and their respective archives and trying to bring those into some sort of coordinated affiliation with the Library of Congress where those types of affiliations are sought. We also want to thank Ranking Member Moran and Chairman Taylor for including report language dealing with enhancing our capability as the chief legislative body for our country through expanded televideo conferencing, where we can conference with our colleagues in parliaments around the world. Would that not be a contributor to peace? Would it not be great if we could do that in many places in the Middle East right now? We hope that by expanding these facilities and getting recommendations through the report language that is in here that we will leave those who follow us here in better condition than we found the institution when we arrived. Also regarding the renumbering of the offices in all of these buildings, so important to helping the general public find their way around, we want to see a report on that. And the continuing efforts to bring the works of artists to represent the contributions of women to American life in this Capitol so that all of our society can see that they made a contribution. This has a real place in our bill. I thank the Capitol Police. We do not have a provision here in the bill, but we met with them regarding alternative fuel vehicles. We thank them for their leadership in assuring that the new purchases of vehicles will help us move this branch, and indeed our whole country, to a noncarbon-based future, and hopefully moving us to a carbohydrate- based future. In closing, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) for their cooperation in helping us build an even better legislative branch for our country.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the compelling story of this incredible Member of Congress from Texas, Nick Lampson, who placed on the Record the story of his family and what Social Security has meant not just to seniors but to the disability insurance program and the insurance program for widows caring for children or widowers and millions of people. We never really know if we will be the one out of five families struck in America with tragedy beyond our ability to control and whether we will have the insurance to weather bad times. And is it not a credit to his mother and their family that every one of those six children has matured into a productive and really priceless citizen for our country. We need more citizens like Nick Lampson in this Chamber. We would build a different and better country with that kind of sensitivity and understanding. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to continue what has become my weekly tradition of clocking the Republican raid on the Social Security trust fund. Since early June, I have been coming down here showing how much money they are taking out of the Social Security trust fund and using for other purposes, such as huge tax cuts to the richest 1 percent of people in this country. When I started these remarks, they were borrowing, as of early June, $208 billion. Every single week they have dipped into it more. It went up to $212 billion, then $218 billion, then $223 billion. By July 9 they were at $235 billion. Then at $241 billion. The line of increase into the trust fund is every week growing at geometric proportions. That amounts to already $858 being taken out of your pocket as an American citizen from your Social Security payments. What is the Republican House leadership doing about this? Nothing. This House leadership has simply refused to address the ongoing raid in the Social Security trust fund. In January of 2001, our Nation had finally, after a 12-year struggle, actually managed to balance the budget. And we had surpluses. People were saying that we would be able to pay off our accumulated debt by the year 2011. There was euphoria. Even on Wall Street they took down the debt clock. What I would like to say to all the Bush administration friends on Wall Street, you ought to put the debt clock back, because the party that represents your big business interests, they are just increasing the debt again. So why do you not put the debt clock up? I would actually go and put one of those hooks in the wall at Times Square myself if I could find out who had that old clock. Not even 1\1/2\ years later, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that under the Republican budget passed in March of this year, there will be a $1.8 trillion on-budget deficit over the next 10 years. I have been asking myself, why does the Republican leadership of this House love this red ink so much? They are taking money out of the Social Security trust fund in order to give these big tax cuts. I thought, well, maybe they love to issue Federal debt securities because who sells those debt securities? Twenty big bond houses on Wall Street make all the fees. They do not sell savings bonds to average Americans. Try to buy a savings bond and have it sent to your house. It will not happen. You have to go fill out a special form, then they send it over to whoever you say should be the recipient a month later. They have actually taken away the right of individual citizens to buy savings bonds conveniently in this country. They prefer to sell debt securities through the 20 bond houses on Wall Street because they make all the fees, which we pay for out of our tax dollars. So instead of paying off the debt by 2011, under the Republican budget our publicly held debt is scheduled to increase by $2.8 trillion by fiscal year 2011 and they are covering it over right now by borrowing from what is left in the Social Security trust fund to cover the difference. The biggest reason for this radical reversal in our Nation's financial health is the Bush administration tax cut. How do you feel about $858 being taken out of your pocket and then given to a corporation like Enron this year which is going to take over $350 million in the form of a tax rebate because of the Bush administration tax bill? Or how about this: Your money is going to the top 1 percent of the wealthiest people in this country who no longer have to pay an inheritance tax. They are taking your money. That is what is happening to the Social Security trust fund. What is the effect on all of this? The Republicans said they voted. They voted seven times not to do this. It is true, they did vote. But they are not keeping their promise. They told us they wanted to assure that not a penny of the Social Security surplus would be used for other programs. But, in fact, their promises have not met the true test of time. So I would say I will be back next week. It is time for the Republicans to stop the raid on Social Security's trust fund, and we are going to stop them come November's election.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, last night this House was kept in session to a ridiculously late hour because there was a divide on the Republican side of the aisle over our Interior bill, where we are supposed to be finding the money to keep our parks open with enough bathrooms and visitor centers and parking spaces to accommodate a growing American public. They were mad because they said there was not enough money. Well, let me contend where they should look for the money. They should not look for the money in the Committee on Appropriations. They should go back to the tax committee and figure out who they gave the money to. Richey Rich is going to make $20 million this year in our country. And if we look at the buy-out packages that they permitted to the chief executive officers in this country and the tax breaks alone in the Bush tax bill, the tax bill to Richey Rich will amount to $712,800 this year because his marginal rate was reduced to 3.6 percent. We might say, gosh, he is only going to make $19.8 million this year, at the same time as we struggle for pennies and are forced to increase fees at our national parks across this country. The answer is not inside the Subcommittee on Interior, the answer is to go back to the tax committee and make every single American contribute to the betterment of this Republic.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my words to that of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the Florida delegation in extending our deepest love and appreciation to our treasured colleague from the State of Florida (Mrs. Meek). Without question, her spirit carries this institution, and she has given hope, not only to her district, but to the people of our entire country. Each of us here in the House knows we are serving with an historic figure, and we thank her family, we thank the people of Florida, of Miami, for sending her here in order that our country be a better place in which to live. I think every single Member here whose life she has touched is a better person for knowing her. She has strengthened us when we were at our weakest, she has made us laugh when we were taking ourselves too seriously, and even as recently as this afternoon she was fighting for the weakest and the poorest among us in the Committee on Appropriations in a several-year effort that she has fought to get rid of usurious lending and check-cashing facilities across this country that prey on the poorest among us. I will never meet another person like the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), and I say to the gentlewoman, I hope that you will come back to us as often as you wish, because you have a seat in the office of every single person on both sides of the aisle of this Chamber. You are held in the highest regard, and you truly have fulfilled the oath that you took to represent the interests of our country. It has been my great privilege to serve with you, and I thank you for your work on behalf of the citizens not just of your district or mine, but our entire country and the world. You are one of a kind. God bless you.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to continue what has become my weekly clocking of the continuing Republican raid on our Nation's Social Security trust fund. Four weeks have passed since I first came to this floor, unveiled our debt clock and our debt graphs and started documenting the truth to the American people about the Social Security trust fund. The truth is that House Republican leaders have turned their back on America's senior citizens and are raiding billions every day from our Social Security trust fund. When President Clinton left office, our Nation had finally moved into an annual balance of accounts, and we were yielding even a small surplus. Though we had a huge accumulated debt that we were beginning to pay off, our Nation's financial house was put in order. What has happened in just a few years under Republican leadership is that we have begun now to amass huge additional debts nationally, and there is only one place where they are going to get the funds to pay for the war, to pay for the tax breaks that have been given to the wealthiest in this country and the corporate cowboys that we see now being brought before congressional committees, and that is, our Nation's Social Security trust fund. Do the Republicans have a plan to stop this raid? No, they do not, and in fact, today, the total raid has run now to over $235 billion. That averages out to about $837 for every single American who will qualify for Social Security. When I first came to this floor 4 weeks ago, they dipped into the Social Security trust fund to a raid of $208 billion, and in just 4 weeks, that has gone up an additional $27 billion. The Republicans in this institution, at least their leadership, are in avoidance, hoping to dodge this issue in the fall's election. They will not even allow a debate on Social Security reform because they know that their risky idea of privatization to try to cover up what is really going on with the accumulated trust funds will be exposed for what it is, and that is, a gamble, not a guarantee. Just look at what has been happening in the stock market, if my colleagues want to know something about gambles. The American people deserve better. Our working families deserve better and our seniors deserve better. Working families have earned the right, not the privilege, the right to a secure retirement, and Republican leaders must put Social Security first, not dip further and further into the trust fund, violating the very lock box promise they made seven times not to dip into Social Security reserves in order to pay for other things. The urgency is real and especially pronounced in the wake of the Enron collapse, WorldCom and other corporate scandals. Thousands have already lost their retirement checks in the private sector across this country, and many have been forced to return to work or to extend their career. In his own case, President Bush yesterday in a White House press conference commented about confusing accounting procedures that were used to mask nearly three-quarters of a million dollars that he yielded from the early sale of stock in a firm on which he had sat, actually an oil company on which he had sat on the board. When the national press asked him how it was possible that he had sold this stock early and yielded those dollars, he said he still had not figured it out completely. That was reported in three different newspapers today. Let us reflect on that statement for a moment. President Bush, a former corporate director and member of the auditing committee of that corporation, when pressed about possible corporate bookkeeping practices, replies, I still have not figured it out completely. Should the American people expect that? We should expect more. We deserve more. America needs tough accounting standards for private sector plans, and it needs tough accounting standards for Social Security because these dollars have to be replaced somehow. So the time has come for financial and political accountability. Republican leaders should be held responsible and they will be in this coming November's election.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. Mr. Speaker, I express my strong opposition to this pitiful bill that denies senior women across America access to affordable prescription drugs because the Republicans gave all the money away to companies like Enron in tax cuts, and they were not deserved.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, not surprisingly, in this election year the Republicans are attempting to portray themselves as the protectors of Social Security; and many of our women colleagues tonight, led by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) will be discussing this more. During my 5 minutes, what I would like to do is put some history on the record. First, the Republicans have advocated mailing out fancy but meaningless guarantee certificates to Social Security beneficiaries this year at a cost of $16 million to the taxpayers, and each million that would be needed to produce and mail these certificates would pay for the processing of maybe 1,400 disability claims. When it started to come out how they wanted to waste the money on those kinds of phony certificates, and that proposal literally flopped, Republicans have sought other forms of political cover but to no avail. So now they have moved into the avoidance mode and are simply dodging Social Security, blocking key legislation from coming to this floor. The American people deserve to hear the details of the Republicans' privatization plans for Social Security before the election. That is why I signed the Democratic discharge petition to bring this vital debate to the floor. It requires 218 Members of the House to sign that discharge petition to bring up the bill. Now, realistically, will the Republicans allow these bills to come forward? Well, let us see. Probably not, because the Republican leadership of this House knows that Democrats will stand against privatization and expose their risky and flawed plans for what they are. Truly, Republicans have always had trouble believing in Social Security and have a long record of opposition to our Nation's premier social insurance program. Let me put this on the record. Beginning with the original Social Security Act when the ranking minority Republican member of the Committee on Ways and Means was Representative Allen Treadway, a Republican from Massachusetts, he led the attack here in Congress, in the House, offering a motion to delete the old age and unemployment insurance programs and stating that he would vote, and I quote, ``most strenuously in opposition to the bill at each and every opportunity.'' At that time, 95 of 103 Republicans voted along with Representative Treadway to gut the original act. That was 92.2 percent of the Republicans. But they failed because there were more Democrats that believed that we should lift those in poverty who are seniors to a level at least of subsistence and to dignity in their retirement years. Now, Republican opposition in the Senate was also pronounced, with a majority of Senate Republicans voting with Senator Hastings to delete the retirement program from the Social Security Act. As we all know, the Act went on to pass both Chambers and was signed into law by Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. But Republican opposition to Social Security was not limited to the old age and unemployment provisions. In 1956, 38 of 44 Senate Republicans voted against an amendment to restore the disability insurance program to the bill. That was 86\1/2\ percent of the Republicans in the Senate not wishing to include the disability insurance provisions, which are the lifeline for millions and millions of people who have been stricken in their families with illness or with injury. In 1965, when Medicare Part A and B were created, when President Lyndon Johnson was President and led this fight for health care for our seniors, 128 of 165 House Republicans, or 77.6 percent, three-quarters of them, voted to recommit the bill and replace it with, guess what, a voluntary system. Have we heard this before? Most recently, Republicans have broken their repeated promises, voting seven times on the issue to ensure that, as they say, every penny of Social Security will be locked away in a lockbox. Instead, they have drained the budget, even as we stand here tonight, with tax breaks for the super rich and are plundering the trust funds of Social Security over the next 10 years by nearly $2 trillion. So every week I am coming down here to the floor to take a look at the grade on the Social Security trust fund. I call it the debt clock. As of today, Republicans have raided now $223,945,205,479 from the Social Security trust fund, which averages now about $796 per American. Every week since we have come on the floor, that is up over $6 billion from last week. They keep going into the trust fund to give money away to CEOs like Kenneth Lay, who, believe me, owes us money. The Social Security recipients of this country and the taxpayers owe him nothing. Democrats believe Social Security is a compact of trust between generations. We will continue to fight against the Republican raid to ensure that Social Security's existence will continue for generations to come. Democrats have always believed in Social Security, and we always will.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I wish to say that this Republican-led Congress is trying to enlarge NAFTA to all the countries of Latin America and to do so not by regular order but by this outrageous tourniquet rule, because the rule basically locks in the deals of the powerful few against the workers of this country and, indeed, our hemisphere. We have seen it before. The leadership knows it cannot win it on the merits, on the up and up, so they intimidate Members, or they produce a rule like this that even the authors cannot fully understand. But we know what it does is it will tie the hands of our conferees so they cannot deal with the needs of displaced workers, and they cannot extend health benefits to them. It reminds me of how the GATT vote was passed. When they could not pass it, they figured out, let us do it in a lame duck session after 2 a.m. in the morning when nobody will know what happens anyway. The American people will not pay attention. Mr. Speaker, the American people are paying attention. When they cannot win on the merits, they rig the rules. I say to my colleagues, vote no on this rule. Do not vote for any more NAFTAs.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, get the senior tour buses gassed up to travel to Canada, because under the Republican prescription drug plan seniors will not find any relief from the high costs of prescription drugs. In fact, Americans pay three to four times more for their medications than any other people in the world; and the prices of the 50 most commonly prescribed drugs for seniors increased last year nearly three times the rates of inflation. Yet the Republican bill does not do one thing to reduce the root cause of our Nation's crisis in access to affordable life-saving medications and that is their costs. Under the Republican plan, seniors would be forced to purchase drugs through private drug policies, another slippery slope to the dangerous path to privatization. And as if attempting to privatize Medicare were not enough, the Republican bill covers less than a quarter of Medicare beneficiaries' estimated drug costs over the next 10 years. Frankly, the Republican bill preserves the inflated prices of one of their biggest set of contributors. It is no wonder the pharmaceutical companies showed up in droves last week at the Republican party's $30 million fund raising bash here in Washington. In fact, Bob Novak from CNN gave us insight into that fund-raiser. He said, ``This is one of the great fund-raisers of all time, because people going to see these things for 20 years had never found them so crowded. It was chair to chair, back to back.'' And they had to pay $100,000 to get into the photo session with the President. If you wanted to sit on the platform with the President, that cost a little more. You had to pay $250,000 in order to do that. I guess they will try to get the government they are paying for unless the American people pay attention. Now with all the high rhetoric surrounding the Republican plan one might think it provides a real benefit, but take a closer look. Under the Republican plan you may, and I stress may, be able to choose from a private program that will cost you $35 a month. Yes, their bill does not cap the drug premium. In fact, insurers would set the premium cost, and it would vary from plan to plan, place to place. But let us ignore that flaw for a moment and assume it might be about $35 a month. So that is $420 a year for that premium. For the first $250 you spend on prescription medication, this new plan will pay you exactly nothing. That is right. If you need no more than $250 worth of medication, this plan will cost you $670 a year, the $35 monthly premium plus the $250 deductible. Now if you are one of every three Medicare beneficiaries who spend less than $500 on medication every year, you are in for a treat. What would have cost you $500 will cost you $720 under the Republican plan. Yes, you would actually pay almost 50 percent more under their plan than you would pay without it. Maybe a person spends closer to $1,000 a year, as half of the Medicare population does. If so, they do fare a bit better. If their medications will cost $1,000, they will spend $420 on the program, $250 for the first batch of drugs and then 20 percent of the next $750 they owe, or $150. That adds up to $820. They will have saved $160. But if someone is among the 30 percent of Medicare recipients that spends more than $2,000 a year for drugs, I am afraid we have some bad news for them. Under the Republican plan, they are on their own for every dollar between $2,000 and $3,800. This plan will not pay them a cent. Their plan is simply a sad attempt to gain political cover by sounding like they are working for and care about seniors while simultaneously draining Social Security and Medicare trust funds to pay for huge breaks for the superrich contributors. So ignore the Republican rhetoric. We should provide seniors with a real and meaningful prescription drug benefit. We should encourage aggregate buying by groups of seniors, not sending each senior out there with some kind of expensive privatized plan in the rough waters of the marketplace in their very, very small canoes. The first step to make Medicare and prescription medication available to our seniors at more affordable prices and to make them more available is to vote ``no'' on the risky Republican Medicare drug plan they intend to bring up this week.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss this administration's and this Republican leadership's warped and dangerous legislative priorities. Let us start with Social Security, which is dead last on their priority list. This House leadership has simply refused to bring up Social Security. Not only are they refusing to debate. They are completely dodging the issue. The situation is so bad that this week, Democrats were forced to launch a discharge petition wherein we have to get 218 signatures in order to try to bring a bill to the floor to provide the American public with the debate on Social Security that our people deserve. All the while, the Republicans are on a course to raid and are raiding the Social Security trust fund to the tune of $1.8 trillion. This debt clock tells the story of this week. Every week since they have started to do this, because we were in surplus a year and a half ago, finally, after years of budget regimen during the Clinton years and this Congress, we were able to bring revenues and expenditures into balance, even though we have an accumulated debt we are paying off. Nonetheless, they have begun to try to raid the Social Security trust fund to pay for ongoing expenses; and every week while they are doing this, I am going to come down here and let the American people know how much they borrowed this week. So as of today, they have now taken $218,095,890,410, which amounts to, for each citizen in our country, they dipped into your pocket $775. You could say it is akin to a tax imposed on each senior and their family in this country. Now, what do Republicans propose to do about it? Nothing. In fact, if they had their way, they would sneak through a debt ceiling increase and go on about the business of pushing their number one priority, one which lies at the very heart of the Republican Party, and that is cashing out the revenues of the people of the United States to the wealthiest people and corporations in this country, even those that locate their headquarters offshore, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the Republican leader, endorsed yesterday. Members know the companies I am talking about, the energy giants like Enron Corporation, which is going to take 350 million more dollars of our seniors' money for tax breaks that are given to them, and the pharmaceutical companies that lined up for the big dinner that the Republicans held last night over here at the convention center, where they raised over $30 million for this fall's election. Let us look at veterans. That is another low priority on the Republican list. This administration has proposed a 250 percent increase on copay for pharmaceuticals that our veterans must buy when they go into the veterans' clinics or veterans' hospitals. If one is a heart patient or somebody that needs 10 prescriptions a month, figure out, if one is charged an additional $7 per prescription, that is over $70 to $100 additional per month. That is a tax on our veterans. Republicans who profess to be the party of tax cuts would impose new taxes on our veterans in the form of higher pharmaceutical costs, while pushing for more tax breaks for the superwealthy and our Nation's most profitable corporations. What about a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, an issue they are finally getting around to after ramming through over $2 trillion in tax breaks over the next 10 years for their campaign sugar daddies? Their plan would put Medicare on the road to privatization, and leaves a $3,600 gaping hole in coverage between the initial benefit limits that people would qualify for and the kick-in of a stop-loss protection at $4,500 in out-of-pocket spending. Their plan is so defective it is no surprise that even some leading Republican experts are skeptical that it would work. Is it any surprise that the pharmaceutical industry, whose inflated prices are the root cause of the problem, has endorsed the bill and actually is hugging it, as I watched them walk across the streets of Washington? Republicans are fond of the phrase ``Leave no child behind,'' even though the education bill they sent to this floor through the budget is $2 billion under last year's spending. Then how are we going to leave no child behind? But what about America's seniors? How many of them are going to be left behind? Every day how many of our veterans are being left behind? That is what Republican policies do, they will leave the American people behind the eight ball for generations to come. America needs to put Social Security first. Our mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers who built this great country and put their lives on the line for it, they should not have to worry. We ought to take care of the problem here. We owe it to them. We need to repair the broken lock on the Social Security lockbox that was not supposed to be invaded, but it has been invaded seven times now. We need to provide prescription drug coverage for our seniors. We need to create good jobs for our people here at home, and not give tax breaks for them to invest offshore. We need to start creating wealth and good-paying jobs in this country again. We need the Republican Party to get its priorities straight for a change.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the best you can say about the comments made yesterday by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the House Republican leader, of U.S. companies fleeing to offshore locations in order to reap additional tax benefits, is that he spoke from his heart, and the heart of the Republican Party. At the same time as his party was raising over $30 million up the street at the Washington Convention Center from groups like the pharmaceutical industry, Congressional Quarterly reported that he defended the actions of corporations to move their headquarters abroad to reduce their tax burdens. With all his party is taking from the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, his remarks reveal the true heart of the Republican Party: Take our people's money before everything, before Social Security and Medicare, before prescription drugs, before jobs in America. So the best I can do is to thank the Republican leader for revealing the true heart of the Republican Party. It is the reason this Member is a Democrat.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, do not try to buy slab specialty steel made by domestic manufacturers in the heartland of America that I represent because the last one just closed. If you are an independent machine toolmaker, you cannot find that product. It is a very, very serious situation. I just want to put two words on the record to add to this discussion: one is ``recession'' and another is ``repression.'' In terms of recession, if we think about the recession that we are crawling our way out of, and some parts of America are still in, what triggered it? Rising oil prices for imported fuel. People have forgotten that. Before September 11, we were already struggling with a hammerlock on this economy; and then after September 11 when the OPEC countries and some of the other oil exporting countries got worried, they lowered prices. Then they are coming back up again. This is a very manipulated price scheme, and that was proven by the Federal Trade Commission in some of the initial investigations done as we entered this recession. The American people should remember that rising petroleum costs and imports, the rising costs of imports, can really kick this economy in the shins. If we think back to the 1970s and what happened in those decades with the Arab oil embargoes and the severe depression that this country was thrown into because of the costs of rising imports, we are now importing more than we did back then. Yes, we are conserving more at the same time, but we have not created the new fuels here at home. What we need to do on the public and private sides, we have been bunting rather than hitting three-base hits. It has made a huge difference in our ability to handle our economy in a way that preserves our independence and does not do as much harm here at home. The other word I wanted to just say a word about, if I could, and that is repression, because some of the very countries that receive the dollars when our people go to the gas pump, for example, and they buy petroleum that is refined into gasoline from other countries, those dollars go to them. What do they use them for? The gentleman from Oregon mentioned Saudi Arabia. Most of the terrorists were born or spent time in Saudi Arabia. That is a very repressive regime. And our dollars support it. What did Osama bin Laden say? He said that he wanted U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia. What are U.S. troops doing in Saudi Arabia? Thousands and thousands and thousands of troops, what are they doing there? And what happened to the USS Cole about a year and a half ago in Yemen harbor when a suicide bomber hit our destroyer, what was that ship doing there in the Middle East? Could it be anything to do with watching the oil lanes and the movement of tankers out of that region of the world? I think it had a whole lot to do with that and I think it is important for us to think about who we are supporting when we spend our dollars. It is very hard for the American people to do anything on the petroleum issue because when they go to the gas pump, they do not know that Citgo gets its gasoline from Venezuela, they do not know that Occidental has fields in Colombia, they do not really think about Exxon in Saudi Arabia, they do not associate a company name with a country. Yet that is exactly what is going on. And so if you buy that product, you support through the transaction the regimes of those countries and there is not a single democracy among them. And in the end the people living in those countries translate our behavior as a society into what they experience in their own homelands and they want a better way of life, but the regimes there do not permit it. And so some of the anger directed against the United States is a direct result of the economic relationships that keep them down. I would just maybe brag a little bit here about an organization in northwest Ohio called Northwest Ohio Ethanol, because at the same time as our Marines and Special Forces are defending the edge of freedom globally, there are things people can do here at home. And in terms of our energy trade deficit, one of the most important actions we can take is to become fuel self-sufficient. We have a new private company, Northwest Ohio Ethanol, that has been incorporated, that is selling shares on the private market so that Ohio's farmers can come together and provide a new fuel for the future. We only have two biofuel pumps in the entire State of Ohio, a State of 11 million people. I want to buy an E-85 car. I want to buy a biodiesel vehicle. I would be a fool to do it in Ohio because I cannot get the fuel to put in it. And so this deficit is really a very wicked thing, because the average American cannot alone dig out of it. The actions that one could take as a consumer are precluded because of the very large interests that control the refining and the supply of fuel to the marketplace. It is important to think about the words recession at home and repression abroad and what kind of a political endowment we are bequeathing to the future.

Ms. KAPTUR. I would enjoy that opportunity as you are such a leader in all those areas.

Ms. KAPTUR. If the gentleman would yield, I was speaking to my local press in my district, and they asked what did the President mean about Iraq. I said would it surprise you, in spite of what the headlines are saying in Washington, today we are importing 8 percent of our petroleum from Iraq. They were stunned. How could this be happening at the same time the no-fly zone is maintained over Iraq? The relationships that have made us more and more dependent on petroleum imports than we were 25 years ago is really a sad tale for our country, and I thank the gentleman for helping us bring this out into the light so those who are recording remarks and those who are listening, particularly the younger generation will understand, we have to unwind, we have to get ourselves out of these relationships because too often oil has been serving as a proxy for our foreign policy, and our trade deficit is a sign of our growing lack of independence.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I was thinking about this today and reading the headlines about Afghanistan, and that country now trying to pull together a government and it is not very easy to do. But assuming they could pull the government together, through Afghanistan will come an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea. Then we see the President's comments about Iraq and whether or not certain forces will be used to destabilize the government of Iraq, and we recall the Persian Gulf War and that oil field that lies between Iraq and Kuwait. Then we saw the Bush administration a few weeks ago give mixed messages to this Congress and the world about Venezuela and which government the administration was supporting or not supporting in Venezuela. What do Iraq, Venezuela and Afghanistan all have in common? They have in common the oil imperative. So many times when you see the United States become dependent, as we are in this oil arena, very bad things can happen. Indeed, wars can happen when our country is not independent. I think it is important what the gentleman is presenting in terms of the financial condition of our country and who we owe. The first phone call I made after 9-11 was to Alan Greenspan, and I wanted to know from an economical standpoint who can pull our bonds internationally. I said, I want you to assure me that we can hold it together because 40 percent of the debt of this country is now owned by foreign interests. He said, We can track that back to the London markets. And I said, What does that tell me? He said, I do not think you need to worry, but he could not actually tell me who holds our debt. I think he might know, I am not sure, but he was not able to tell me. But when we owe $400 billion a year to interests that we do not even have a list of, we know that it is traded in the London markets, if we could theorize, China is now the largest holder of our dollar reserves. The trade deficit is a reciprocal for that. Japan is number two. So our fate lies in their hands. Saudi Arabia and the OPEC countries, number three. So behind the scenes, they have enormous leverage when the United States is frittering away its economic independence.